The argument that Big Tobacco is still promoting smoking as a diet aid is slimmer than a More that’s been cut in half lengthways and re-rolled into two. Tobacco company advertising has been utterly deleted from existence. So the mere existence of thin cigarettes make women think they’ll get slim if they smoke them? If any readers are that dim, I suggest you smoke toothpicks instead. I doubt any readers here are that dim, since you’re operating a computer for something other than games and porn. The real agenda is, as Junican has often pointed out, to gain control of the size of the cigarette and to make it progressively smaller. This will have no effect on those of us who roll up, we can still put two ounces of tobacco in a page of the Times and roll it. Did it once with some friends, but it was the Glasgow Herald, not the Times. I know it’s hard to believe but I’m afraid we were very, very drunk. Put it this way – there was no ‘morning after’ because we were still going when the sun came up. Ah, the joys of youth, and of the days when tobacco wasn’t so Government-hated and was cheaper.

Despite the definite It Is Happening Now tone of the headline, the article says:

Researchers from Kings College, London, predict that within the next 30 years the number of women with lung cancer will more than treble, up from 26,000 to 95,000 in 2040.

In 30 years these ‘experts’ will all have retired, so 30 years is a nice safe distance away and they don’t need to worry about being sacked if it doesn’t happen. If they had gone for ‘doubled’ they might still be working when the date arrived. Rule of thumb: check the age of the researcher and if the prediction is past their retirement age, they don’t really believe it. It’s just a way to keep their project funded for the rest of their career. Sorting out the mess will be someone else’s problem.

Lung cancer rates are indeed increasing, while smoking is in decline. There is very little proper research into lung cancer and if you’re a nonsmoker and you turn up at your doctor’s with a persistent cough, he is most unlikely to think to test you for lung cancer. Why? Because the antismoker brigade have linked smoking with lung cancer so tightly that now, only smoking causes lung cancer and all smokers die of it. Many of the dim believe this absolutely.

The truth is a little different. The truth is that there are several kinds of lung cancer, including types that cannot have been caused by smoking, and that smoking might increase your risk of lung cancer but not actually by very much in real terms. Oh, and smokers can also get non-smoking-related lung cancers which will be registered as smoking-related because they smoke. This further messes up the statistics and holds back real research.

There is, as I said, very little research into lung cancer. As indeed the article also says:

But campaigners warn that not enough funding is being put towards better diagnosis methods and treatment.

It receives a quarter of the amount dedicated to breast cancer even though it claims more than three times as many lives.

The reason there is so little research is that the antismokers won’t allow it. They know there are many other causes of lung cancer, they know that smoking isn’t really the one and only cause, but they don’t want the public to know. Anyone trying to take a neutral or even non-hate stance won’t get funded. Start your project with the conclusion that ‘it’s all down to smoking’ and you’ll get the grant. Include the words ‘and possible other causes’ and you won’t. Smoking causes everything. It even makes you go blind. The drones will believe that a smoker cannot smell, taste or see. Excellent. Let them rack their brains trying to figure out who stole their bacon sandwich. Couldn’t have been me, I’m a smoker. I didn’t even know it was there.

Even the ‘smoking-related’ cancers might not all be tobacco-smoking-related. There is now so much crap in the air that we really should all go around with HEPA filters over our faces. Aside from inhaling traffic fumes, incinerator smoke, and little bits of dead human floating out of crematoria chimneys, there have been over two thousand nuclear bomb tests on this planet. They have taken place pretty much all over it. And they started in the 1940s. Stick that in your stats and smoke it.

They won’t. The increased research funding they are bleating for is for more antismoker propaganda. Inhale the isotope, it’s good for you. Breathe deeply of the healthy diesel. What’s that? A bit of burning leaf? You’re going to die! Then you’ll go blind and deaf and mute and your willy will drop off (for women smokers, it’ll heal up). You’ll get worms and lice and giant mutant toads will poke you with mouldy oyster shells while you sleep. Aliens will take you away and ram barbed probes into all the places you especially don’t want them to go. Your children will turn green and furry and smell of old ladies’ saggy and rarely-changed underwear (Brown, with ‘February’ written on them). All your friends will spontaneously combust and then haunt your ashtrays. Expect to see all of the above in a serious press release from ASH any day now. They’ve come up with less sensible things in the past.

There should be much more research into lung cancer. It is, after all, genuinely on the rise while smoking is on the decline. Just like a lot of other respiratory problems. However, it has to be proper research for once. No prewritten conclusions as a prerequisite of funding. No selection of researchers based on how high up the ‘I hate smokers’ scale they can get. Proper, unbiased research into the real causes, no defensive ‘Oh but of course smoking is the main cause’ soundbites even when discussing something smoking can’t possibly have caused (is there anything left?). I honestly expect, any day now, to hear some ‘expert’ proclaim that Martians and dinosaurs smoked, and that’s why there aren’t any left alive.

If the antismokers had not pushed their agenda so hard, a lot of nonsmoking lung cancer patients would have been diagnosed much earlier and survived, and we’d know an awful lot more about the other causes by now.

I’m lucky to be a smoker. If I go to the doctor with a bit of a cough, he’ll have me in front of an X-ray machine before I can light another one. If I ever get lung cancer I’ll be diagnosed the same day and have it hacked out before it has time to make itself at home. I don’t care how much it costs the NHS. I’ve already paid for that treatment. Many times over. So all those ‘ooo, I don’t want my taxes to pay for your horrible habit’ people can go and slide an ungreased fishhook into their anal passages then pull it out at speed. You are not paying. I already have. In fact I have paid for your sniffles and trivial whining complaints as well as my own possible future treatments for a proper disease and if you still want to bleat, carry on, you can do it while you watch me not care.

If I was a nonsmoker with a persistent cough, when the doctor asked if I smoked I’d say ‘yes’ and I’d have stained my fingers with turmeric for effect. Otherwise he’d fob me off with a bottle of Covonia and a plastic spoon. That is not a joke. It really happens.

Science does not simply include uncertainty. Science is uncertainty. Nothing is fixed, real science is never settled. If I test a 25g sample of food for Salmonella and I don’t find any, I do not report ‘there is no Salmonella contamination’. I report ‘Not detected in 25g’ – I didn’t find any in the sample I tested. I do not guarantee that it’s not in any of the rest of the food, I don’t even guarantee that there wasn’t one single bacterium that might have failed to grow in the sample I tested. If I were to test it all there’d be nothing left to eat. The result does tell you that there aren’t likely to be very many, if any, so it’s safe to eat because you’d have to take in a good dose of Salmonella all at once to get infected. If it’s not found in 25g, you’d have to eat about 25 kg of that food at one sitting to stand any chance at all of an infection and if you did that, you’d have bigger problems than the shits.

Currently accepted theory is that the Moon formed from debris when something hit the Earth. ‘Currently accepted theory’ means ‘based on the information we have at the moment, that’s the most likely conclusion’. It does not mean ‘This is so, now and forever’. Science does not make definitive and never-changing statements. Any scientist that does should have his lab coat burned, all his pens and pencils snapped and the words ‘Not a real geek’ branded into his forehead.

Yet as far as the antismokers are concerned, smoking causes lung cancer and that’s all there is to it. The same is true of the global warmers and all the rest of the ‘science is settled’ crowd. All of them are responsible for the death of science and the destruction of the image of a scientist as a neutral observer, a researcher who wants to know the truth, whatever the outcome. They have turned science on its head: data must agree with the prewritten conclusions or the data is wrong. Reality must conform to the rabid imaginings of the insane.

The science-is-settled brigade are responsible for the deaths of the elderly who cannot afford to heat their homes, for the deaths of those nonsmokers who ‘couldn’t possibly have lung cancer’, and for sending science and medicine into a state that a mediaeval alchemist would deride as primitive superstition.

Even a caveman would scratch his head at some of the lunatic pronouncements. “Smoke kill? But smoke and fire keep away lions and cook food.” The antis would say he’s scratching his head because the smoke has given him dandruff. They really are that stupid. They believe that smoking cannabis is harmless but smoking tobacco is deadly. As far as the lungs are concerned, there is no difference at all. For the brain, well, there is some difference but the chemical difference doesn’t affect what the lungs experience. So if smoking cannabis doesn’t cause lung cancer, then neither does smoking tobacco, cabbage or asparagus.

Even some of the Big Antitobacco have started to realise the nonsense of their position. Junican has a new paper by a smoker-hater that has at least attempted to apply real science but still, it’s all about smoking. His million subjects are a hell of a good sample set but as Junican points out, they are self-selected. Take a random one million out of seventy million and you have a good statistical base. Take one million who have something in common – all of them health-conscious – and your subset is no longer a random sample. You have the one-seventieth of the population who are health-conscious, the other sixty-nine seventieths are a different set entirely. Recognise that and you can still do some good research. Ignore it and your research is nonsense.

Science and medicine is, to use the vernacular, fucked. It needs rebuilding from scratch. I’m not interested in going back to it, other than as an independent, because it is suffused with money and politics to the extent that the real science won’t get a look in.

I know my tone is flippant, it is in real life too, but there is a serious message here. Don’t expect to see a real cure for cancer until the fingers that point are all snapped off, and we get back to actual research again.

I don’t think it will happen in my lifetime.

Advertisements

Share this:

Like this:

Related

28 thoughts on “Uncertainty.”

What you say is very true, I have a dear friend dying from lung cancer, she has never smoked a cigarette in her life and none of her family has either, grew up in a village, never exposed to industry or chemicals, never even eaten any junk food. It took two years to find her cancer after being told it was asthma and allergies, didn’t even get an X-Ray until she happened to see a locum Dr. I, on the other hand have smoked for 52 years and had lung cancer found by pure accident when having a CT for an unrelated condition, no symptoms at all. I had fast surgery and no further treatment and, so far, two years later I am fine. I did stop smoking for a couple of months then thought sod it, what’s the point of making myself miserable, if it comes back I will cross that bridge then. My surgeon said there is a lot more to it than just smoking though no doubt it can be a contributory factor for some people. I saw that woman from CRUK on TV today stating as fact that the increase was due to women smoking in the 50s and 60s, shouldn’t we all be dead? Worrying thing is that a lot of fairly young never smoking women are being diagnosed with lung cancer and no one seems to be even looking at why, I feel for them as they are so indignant as they have never smoked so how could they have lung cancer. As long as this propaganda continues there is no chance of finding other causes.

ps Just wanted to add this bit, due to the small size and position of the nodule I was unable to have a biopsy so I took a bit of convincing to have the surgery. I did tell the surgeon that if it wasn’t cancer he had better not let me wake up! I assume he was telling me the truth that it was.

It’s interesting that lung cancer is on the rise despite a reduction in smoking. The lack of interest in finding out why doesn’t surprise me.
The daily spraying of chemtrails over the UK and around the world seems to be getting ignored in the media. It’s classically called ‘cognitive dissonance’ . Look away and maybe it isn’t happening. Maybe this can be the reason for a rise in lung cancers.
If you could spare some time on the subject then your scientific training would be ideal leggy as you would be able to separate the wheat from the chaff and give us your opinion on the subject.
Well qualified doctors and scientists are now satisfied that we’re being sprayed like bugs on a daily basis but they are always looking for the views of other scientists to either prove or disprove their findings ( unlike the global warming scammers who have closed their eyes and ears and block any dissent).
Scotland is one of the worst areas for spraying so it’s actually in your own interest to find out the health effects of this spraying. The effect of the lack of sunshine due to the spraying is well documented …crop failures are now the norm. but what effect is the barium and aluminium etc having on us ?

From one report…

“Chemtrails have been found to contain:
Barium, Aluminum Oxide, Titanium, Magnesium, and BannEthylene dibromide (dibromethane) or EDB are the essential elements of the chemtrail. [Nano particles, dessicated human blood cells, bacteria, fungi and other toxic substances have also been detected.]

Aerosol Barium salts were sprayed from planes over Panama, Libya, and during Desert Storm to make people sick and weak. Barium poisoning is worse than lead poisoning. The lungs are affected adversely. Many complaints of colds, flu, even pneumonia occur within a very few days after heavy chemtrail spraying over an area.

Aluminum causes extreme neurological disorders. Dementia, uncontrollable spasms, Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s Disease can be caused by long term aluminum exposure. Breathing in those particulates over time is a definite long term hazard.

EDB or dibromethane was banned in the USA years ago from use in all auto and jet fuels. But somehow it is appearing again in samples from chemtrail residue. It is a major component of insecticides, which are nerve poisons. It affects the nervous system especially where breathing is involved. And it is very carcinogenic.

But of course you don’t need any videos. Just look up at the sky the next time it’s not overcast. You will see and hear the spraying going on.
Novemeber 11th , Remembrance Sunday was supposed to be clear and sunny here but was overcast with a sky full of chemicals.
We didn’t even get the day off to remember the folk who died for freedom.
So pleas have a look Leggy and see what you think.

I’ve seen this film before, and the other one – what in the world are they spraying. I used to dismiss chemtrails as just contrails but the heavy metals the tinfoilers claimed were being sprayed are now being found in increasing concentrations in soils.

Also, the sky in Wales this year was remarkably clear of trails despite there normally being a lot of high air traffic going over there (I was there while the Olympics were on) and the weather was very good. I also saw something I’d never seen before. I saw, in a cloudless sky, a plane’s contrail turn off halfway across the sky. It had a solid trail from the west horizon to about a third of the way across the sky, then left no trail right up to when it vanished over the eastern horizon. It was very high up all the time, no chance of even guessing what kind of plane it was.

So now I’m not dismissing the chemtrails any more. It needs a bit of serious thought.

Cheers for the reply.
Contrails are just water vapour so dissipate after a few seconds.
Chemtrails form clouds and this means there must be something to bind the water vapour in the chemtrail to prevent it from evaporating. This forms trails that eventually merge together with other trails that block the whole sky.
The chemtrailers criss cross each other and double back on themselves. Hardly something that a normal airliner would do. Or even be allowed to do. Can you imagine two large airliners going head to head at a combined closing speed of 1,000 kts and then turning to come back again ? Well that’s what happens daily and no one notices.
You can sometimes track them here…

This tracks aircraft 24/7 worldwide. Good for checking flights for relatives etc. Better than trying to phone the airline for an update as you can see the flight in real time and check height / speed etc.
Although often chemtrailers won’t be on there or will be classed as ‘no route’ and ‘no flight number’. You will see an aircraft flying above you yet it’s invisible to the planefinder tracker.

Your expertise could…

1. Explain how I take a water sample and who to send it to for testing. Costs etc.

3. Explain any tests you can do yourself in your lab ( soil test for aluminium / barium etc)

4. Confirm any findings on other blogs are plausible ( effect of aluminium on the brain…alzeimers etc)

A cheap camera with a telephoto lens can easily identify aircraft type/ colour etc. Cheap binoculars are able to pick up the airline used with it’s distinctive livery. Many have an all white fuselage so are more difficult.

You’d really need to talk to a physical chemist. I’m a microbiologist.

1. Water sample. Your container must be clean (for microbial samples it should be sterile but that’s not likely to be an issue for metals). It’s best to use one provided by the lab, they’ll have made sure it’s not already contaminated.

2. I briefly looked at morgellons some time ago and came away with a ‘not proved’ verdict. Some people are suffering from something, but what it is I have no idea. Serious scientists won’t touch it, it’s like paranormal research. A career killer. That doesn’t mean there’s nothing in it, but until science takes a proper look we won’t know one way or the other.

Could it be all in the mind? Well, aluminium is known to affect the brain (remember the warnings about aluminium cookware some decades back?) and the heavy metals alleged to come from chemtrails are not good for you either. So it could be that it’s all in the mind, but that does not rule out the possibility that someone put it there.

3. My lab is a microbiology lab. I’m not set up to test for trace metals.

Costs – testing for trace metals should be routine in many labs. They would have a fixed scale of costs. Might not be too expensive, if they are doing the tests every day anyway they can slot in another one. If they have to set up for one test it’ll cost more.

Try an agricultural chemist or a soil science lab but be careful what you ask for. If you say you think the soil might be contaminated, that should be okay. If you say why you think it’s contaminated, they’ll shut up very quickly. Not for sinister reasons, but because they won’t want to risk the tinfoil hat label. You just want to know the heavy metal content of the soil or water, that’s all.

Just like the report today that babies who regularly need Calpol or similar paracetamol based medicines are likely to have asthma when they get older.
The researchers seem to have overlooked the possibility that most parents don’t give their baby medicines without good reason, and there must have been some reason for them giving it to the baby in the first place. Surely it is more likely that the reason they used Calpol in the first place is the cause of the asthma, rather than the Calpol?

My GP phoned me…at 08:30, while I was uncannily enough just smoking my first of the day. The afternoon before I had had an xray done and it had landed on my GP’s desk that morning. Don’t think my GP has ever rung anyone in my family before…and certainly not before his first cup of tea in the morning. Not only did he ring to say that I should be very very worried but that he had…at that ungodly hour…already booked me in with the Lung Specialist (he’d phoned him before he rang me)at the hospital and that that appointment was only a few days away.
I saw the specialist in under a week and was being fed into the giant Polo Mint thingy within days after that.

If I had been a non-smoker then I’d still be swigging back the Dr Snake Oil’s Patented Elixir.

I had a chest X-ray once, some years ago. No symptoms other than answering ‘yes’ to the smoking question. They found nothing so they sent me back to get irradiated again. Still nothing in there. I asked if that meant I was hollow. Nonsmokers wouldn’t have been double-checked like that.

To be fair, the first thing the doc said was ‘I haven’t seen you before’ to which I answered ‘You were probably still in school the last time I was here’. He must have realised that this was his only chance to get every possible test done and he was right, I’ve never been back. No need, I fixed the gut problem myself and he found nothing else wrong.

I never did get those blood samples back either. There was still unmetabolised whisky in them.

Number of disease deaths soaring?
Wellll, about 85% of disease deaths occur to people over the age of 65.

The number of people over the age of 65 is soaring!!!

Anyone could make such a prediction.

The % of the population over the age of 65 steadily increases, this causes the incidence rate for the diseases of old age to steadily increase.

If you remove old people from the general population, cancers will mostly cease to exist.
Problem solved!

The human body flakes off dead skin cells by the mllions every day and, in the average public place, probably 50%(at least) of the airborne particulate matter consists of those dead and decaying skin cells.
This stuff settles on the food you eat and is part of the air you breathe.
Pointing that out to a health-nut can make them stomach sick.

Thanks for that. I’ll have fun using it as my reason for not going to pubs or restaurants next time a smug antismoker asks. Adding, of course, that it wasn’t a problem when they allowed smoking indoors because back then, they’d have had the extractor fans on full. Now, they save money by turning them off.

There was a charity in Liverpool who were devoted to researching treatment of lung cancer, the only one prepared to take on board the stigma of looking into what had become known as the ‘smokers disease’. It was a charity who recognised that, although a large percentage of lung cancer sufferers were or had been smokers, there were some who were not or never had been. Also, the fact that many smokers never contracted this disease meant that it was synergenic, meaning that there were other contributory factors.
When Roy Castle, a cigar smoker who also worked with industrial asbestos in his early career, contracted lung cancer, he very generously spent the remainder of his life raising money for this charity. The effect however was alarming. Upon his death, this charity became the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation. Instead of using their new found wealth to continue their studies into lung cancer, they began a campaign into eradicating passive smoking.

My friend the never smoker who is dying from lung cancer put it very simply in reply to the stigma of lung cancer – if you have lungs you can get lung cancer. I looked at the Roy Castle site and was disgusted that they are wasting the money donated.

I wish that the medics would ‘come clean’. I do not know, but it seems to me to be the case that cancer equals rotting. Just like plants, human bodies are programmed to pass through a cycle. When the body’s ‘systems’ have reached the end of their useful lives, they just stop working. When that happens, bodies begin to ‘rot’.
If a person lives a quiet, risk-free, teetotal, non-smoking, healthy-eating, exercising life, then the end of his life my take longer to arrive. Or not – there are no guarantees.

When cell-repair systems stop working correctly, old age ensues. Not everyone has the same genetic make-up. Thus, some people ought not not to smoke because their bodies cannot cope with the consequences. People do not know what their genetic make-up is, and so they must decide for themselves.

Doll’s Doctors Study shows, without any doubt, that the mathematics show that people who live quiet, unexciting lives survive longer than those who take risks – except that young people who smoke in their youth and quit before thirty five years old, actually LIVE LONGER than non-smokers! Surely, that cannot be true? – and yet, that is what the graph shows. I can only direct readers to the graph in question via:http://boltonsmokersclub.wordpress.com/
Scroll down to Graph 6.

Remember that ASH is irrelevant. It is just an advertising agency. It has no knowledge at all. Ask who the REAL advocates of social and economic destruction are.

If it takes a certain toughness of lung to persist with smoking, then those who stop by age 30-40 are still the tough-lunged ones and possibly tougher in the other internal organs too. If they stop before they’ve managed to cause any problems then they’d be expected to outlive the less-tough-lunged.

There are those who are so tough-lunged that they are still smoking into their 90’s.

I recently had the misfortune to suffer my first two seizures, both in the same day, first at work, then at home when I was discharged from A&E later the same evening, then I was confined to hospital for 6 days where they gave me painkillers an intravenous vitamin B compound.

Naturally when I first was presented at A&E I followed LI’s template, assuring them of my horrendous alcohol abuse and daily tobacco intake.

The result was a full MOT, lung x-rays, blood test for liver functions and a head scan which showed up a fractured skull, incurred as a result of the seizure – which confined me to hospital.

The liver and lung tests were fine, they even checked my heart – fine.

They advised me not to drink so much, quoting the old pulled out of a hat units bullshit, then advised me not to stop drinking suddenly as my frontal lobes went into meltdown, so basically they don’t have a fucking clue what caused the seizures.

Anyway still taking the tablets, and feeling much better now the fracture is stitching itself together, even having a few Export and Regal to pass the time.

So if in doubt, follow Li’s advise and admit to anything, I’m sure I got screened for everything seeing as the quacks thought I was at deaths door, or fearing a malpractice suit down the line.

Always tell them you’re well above whatever limits they’ve made up. With a bit of luck, they’ll sign your death certificate there and then and you can then inform the tax office you will have no further need of their services.